[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[-Jrabbit]

The thing that frosts me is Ben's intellectual dishonesty -- the outright lying, and (especially) his practice "moving the goalposts" rather than facing up to it when confronted with his own falsehoods and errors (of math, omission, logic, etc.).

He has a streak of paranoia as well, and it extends beyond religion and politics. He was a newbie on our Poly fantasy football last year and was equally combative, going so far as to accuse me (as commissioner) of being out to get him. It's a bit odd, because he used to play well with others back when we played Civ2 succession games together.

Regarding Plomp's response -- Ben's nimble regarding the letter of the law, it's true. But I can live with his opinions, his religion and his politics, though I hate them all.

Personally, I think Ben should be banned for a day or two, for cause, just to prove to everyone that the possibility actually exists.

But hey, I was raised Catholic, and some of my best friends are Bushies, some of whom lean Tea Party. I can be tolerant. They can be... well, wrong.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well said jrabbit. It isn't the bigotry, it's the dishonesty.

[SlowwHand]

I'm not even talking about Asher, per se. A person, generally, can talk with Asher.
I'm talking about MOBIUS, Drake and even the designated boot lick that goes by DaShi.
Hell, for all I know, they all may be DL's, but that wouldn't even matter. KH could stand to straighten up some, since I'm on a roll.
If you don't like Ben, ignore him, either through restraint or system methods.

I'll give you an example, with the help of Asher. Asher has helped me many times. We certainly don't agree on all things, and as a for instance, if I was going to be a whine bag I could boohoo over his ageist remark, but why?
If that's how he thinks, that's how he thinks. I don't take it personally. It's a statement he made in general terms, so I ignore it. He may include me in his sentiment, but so what? He still is decent to me, so why would I hold it too hard against him?
You may not agree with Ben on a single thing, but so what? Maybe it's the veteran in me, that makes me know...he's got the right to whatever he thinks. It doesn't make him right, or wrong. It only means people have the right to express their beliefs. The people that I mentioned earlier are just nasty and mean. Maybe you feel that way about Ben. Evidently so.
I'm just saying that if you're going to bash Ben, there are others.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, Ben certainly has unsavory views on things, but he is never mean. Not like some other posters. We certainly don't do enough to handle personal attacks, meanness and other problems here in OT, but no one should be punished for having unpopular views. Even if the main problem isn't Ben's views but his "dishonest" posting style, I agree with Sloww, the best response is to just ignore him. Instead everyone goes out of their way to egg him on. If he gets under your skin, just ignore him and this place will be more peaceful.

[Asher]

Yea, Ben certainly has unsavory views on things, but he is never mean. Not like some other posters.

I guess it depends what you consider mean.

You might think calling someone a poo-head is mean.

But let me assure you, that is not even in the same stratosphere as comments Ben makes. Ben's said repeatedly gay men do not engage in long-term monogamous relationships. I am in a long term monogamous relationship. Can you figure out the implication, Ozzy?

Which is more mean?

Look beyond the superficial, please. Ben actively campaigns to ensure I'm not able to marry my loved one. Is that not mean?

But I call him stupid. I'm the mean one.

I genuinely feel sorry for people who mistake politeness for niceness, and fail to take into account the ideas behind seemingly polite words. The words Ben utters on here are, as far as I'm concerned, some of the most vile and mean things anyone has ever said on the site. But he does it with a smile and without profanity, so airheads all over this forum chew their gum and think "golly gee, what a nice fine gentleman this guy is". Get a clue.

I apologize for being mean.

[Asher]

Here's something I find an interesting dichotomy, while we're on it: I like to think of myself as a nice person. A lot of people here would consider me a nice person. I help people out when they need it even if we don't see eye to eye on things. I even helped Agathon with something once (I can't remember what now, some Windows issue when he was on a university PC). I use profanity more than I probably should, I express my disgust more often than I should, but if people actually know me I'm a nice guy.

Ben is the opposite. On the surface, he seems like the nicest guy on this forum. Formal, polite, Flanders-esque. But if you ever actually look at what the man is saying...think of the ideas behind what he's actively promoting...witness with how little respect he treats the fellow members of this site with his intellectual dishonesty...it's all a big song and dance. And he's got the lot of you fooled.

Make no mistake: Ben is a hateful man. He hates homosexuals, he wants to see them stripped of many rights already afforded to them in Canada. He has said, in polite words and passive-aggressive implication, that my 7-year relationship is either a fraud or an impossibility. He's accused posters of recklessly endangering the lives of others by volunteering to donate their disease-free blood. He very clearly does not think homosexuals are on the same level of humanity as heterosexuals.

How can that not bother any educated person? I look at Apolyton OTF like a neighborhood pub -- some people should just be asked to leave. It's not a freedom of speech issue, it's a private establishment with a certain sense of decency.

[Asher]

I'm not even talking about Asher, per se. A person, generally, can talk with Asher.
I'm talking about MOBIUS, Drake and even the designated boot lick that goes by DaShi.
Hell, for all I know, they all may be DL's, but that wouldn't even matter. KH could stand to straighten up some, since I'm on a roll.
If you don't like Ben, ignore him, either through restraint or system methods.

I'll give you an example, with the help of Asher. Asher has helped me many times. We certainly don't agree on all things, and as a for instance, if I was going to be a whine bag I could boohoo over his ageist remark, but why?

If that's how he thinks, that's how he thinks. I don't take it personally. It's a statement he made in general terms, so I ignore it. He may include me in his sentiment, but so what?

I'm kind of confused here -- why would you take offense with my ageist comment? I was just saying I don't think children have the same mental capacity as adults, which is why I'm ageist. It has nothing to do with you.

You may not agree with Ben on a single thing, but so what? Maybe it's the veteran in me, that makes me know...he's got the right to whatever he thinks. It doesn't make him right, or wrong. It only means people have the right to express their beliefs. The people that I mentioned earlier are just nasty and mean. Maybe you feel that way about Ben. Evidently so.

I have a feeling you would feel differently if the comments Ben made repeatedly devalued your relationships. It's one thing to say "an opinion is an opinion", it's another thing when his "opinion" is grossly offensive because it's making sweeping value judgements on other people. You have to remember that gays still do not have equal rights. Not everything is rosy. Some people consider us oversensitive for these kinds of issues, but can you really blame us? We live in a society that, by and large, is still "opposed" to us. It's very, very difficult to ignore people like Ben when we have to fight tooth-and-nail to get what we have now.

and I feel I should repeat -- it's not just his bigotedness that bugs the hell out of me. If it was just that alone I could probably just argue a lot with him and be fine with it. It's the fact that he lies deliberately and incessantly and misrepresents others that crosses over the line.

[giblets]

If Ben simply believed homosexuality endangered people's souls and he had a duty to warn people, that would be fine. One of the problems with Ben is that he would rather support his beliefs in dishonest or stupid ways than admit that they are just his personal beliefs. And of course he thinks some of his beliefs, despite just being his personal beliefs, should be enforced by the government.

[SlowwHand]

I thought you were saying older people sucked. My mistake. I'm older. I **** up sometimes.

I don't agree with Ben about Gays and unions. I'm really close to accepting a religious ceremony, if it was desired.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. As a Christian, I naturally believe in God. There is no way, none, zip, nada, that I'm going to suggest that God made a mistake in creating Gays. The fairly recently discovered scientific fact of it being genetic, not even a choice (but either one would work) only substantiates what I believe about God.
Ben feels otherwise. That's something that I'm not going to try and "correct". I have my own problems that I want to get fixed. Another thing I've said is that I'm not a "good" Christian. I only care so much whether a person believes in God, or any other opinion.
I'm not an evangelist. It's not my job. I'm sorry. If a person wants to burn in Hell, that's their choice.

[ZEE]

I thought this conversation was supposed to be about Rule 4b?

[SlowwHand]

It's also still the 90's, AAHZ.

[Robert]

Here are the posts in question where he accuses DRose of being a selfish liar and put many lives at risk for giving blood: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=34

Ben fears that DROSe is unknown about a possible infection he has, and passes it on.
Ben does not say that DROSe does it on purpose.

Ben doesn't say that DROSe is a selfish liar, his exact words are: "DROSe, I'm sure you are a great person"

Ben clearly has some worries. These worries may or may not be realistic. I don't see why he's not allowed to express these worries. Apparently these worries are common since the law apparently say that gays cannot donate blood.

Ben doesn't name DROSe a liar either.
You're going way over the top here, Asher.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=55

In this post, he refers to a homosexual as "one of you"....and accuses DRose of lying in order to donate blood, which makes him "happy": http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showp...&postcount=266

Is it wrong to refer to another individual of a group you belong to as "one of you"?
One of you (christians) murdered that abortion doctor.
One of you (dutch guys) introduced slavery in Suriname
One of you (heteros) raped a girl
One of you (gays) talked to me in the bar yesterday.

I see no problem.

Drose was accused of lying. So what?
We can't even accuse each other of lying anymore.

Personally I disagree with Ben here, reading the thread. Drose didn't lie. He wasn't asked and did not tell. That's not a lie.
But I don't see at all how it's a crime to mention that "one of you" "lied".

Not to mention that it's easy countered: "One of you christians also lied when he donated blood."
It's most probably true as well, that one christian lied once. So what?

This post is a bonus: In this one he compares gay men in long-term monogamous relationships (eg, me) to an animal that only exists in fiction:
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=65

Ok, now I see that you're not serious.
Best of all is that Ben in that post admits/agrees that monogame gays are as (un)likely to get HIV infected as monogame heteroes.

Someone who says "Patatoe/patato" does not compare his subject to a patatoe and Ben does not compare a gay to an unicorn. He just uses it as an example.

Don't be silly Asher. Your next argument should really make sense or I'll stop investing my time into this.

And another bonus...that's the thread he was talking about how black people are more likely to be gay.

a. no link
b. so what? Is it bad to be gay? Does it matter if more blacks are gay? Does it offend anybody? Dutch people are more likely to be blonde then people from Kenya. So what?
Maybe it's not even true, then it's just nonsense.

Another bonus: He said the reason gay teenagers have such a high suicide rate is that they were raped by gay men.

no link.
Anyway, so what? It's silly at most.
I can see that it angers you. I am angered myself as well when people say that all christians are dumb nutcases who don't think for themselves and only blindly follow what their minister says. (and that's being said a lot).

It angers me because it's not true, and it especially doesn't apply to myself. But in the end people who say that are just ignorant nutcases. I counter them with words. I'd certainly not want them to be banned.

People all the time make jokes about choir guys who were all raped by their priest. How all priests are gay. How all christians have a fixation on their cross.

Sometimes such a joke is funny. (when relevant).
Often it's boring silly stuff.
I'd never want any of them to be banned.

This is also the thread where he blatantly makes up numbers to slander gays, backs them up with fake citations, then ignores people calling him out on it.

Which is a bannable offense?
Which rule does it violate?

THIS IS ALL IN ONE SINGLE THREAD. This goes FAR beyond his Christianity, don't you think?

Yes, I think so. (for the record: I have also made a lot of posts that go far beyond christianity, and so did you).

But I don't think that's a bannable offence.
Lying is not forbidden on Apolyton, neither is is being dishonest.

And Asher, you provoke Ben all the time.
His response to me is always: "I get provoked and then I answer."
If you provoke him, then don't expect me to defend you when he hits you back with silly words.

Bottom line, Asher; you're a strong self-aware man, I don't think that you need my help against Ben. Not to mention that like 25 people on Apolyton agree with you and stand up for you.
Nobody is standing up for Ben's rights. He's being yelled at all day. That's fine with me. But when people send him death wishes, then I will act. And I will do the same if someone sends death wishes to you or anybody else.

[Robert]

If Ben simply believed homosexuality endangered people's souls and he had a duty to warn people, that would be fine. One of the problems with Ben is that he would rather support his beliefs in dishonest or stupid ways than admit that they are just his personal beliefs. And of course he thinks some of his beliefs, despite just being his personal beliefs, should be enforced by the government.

What's wrong with that?
People had the personal believe in Holland that gays should be able to marry, and that this should be enforced by the government. In the end the government agreed and gay marriage was enforced by law.

Democracy means that every individual can express that his personal believes should be enforced by the government.

The worst thing for democracy is not that someone can have a weird opinion or someone is trying to make the government to change a certain law.
The worst thing for democracy is that some people want to block others from having these democratic rights.

[Robert]

Asher: I have a feeling you would feel differently if the comments Ben made repeatedly devalued your relationships. It's one thing to say "an opinion is an opinion", it's another thing when his "opinion" is grossly offensive because it's making sweeping value judgements on other people. You have to remember that gays still do not have equal rights. Not everything is rosy. Some people consider us oversensitive for these kinds of issues, but can you really blame us? We live in a society that, by and large, is still "opposed" to us. It's very, very difficult to ignore people like Ben when we have to fight tooth-and-nail to get what we have now.

People are repeatedly making comments about how ignorant, stupid, silly, blind, unworthy, rampant, etc. christians are. So what? I consider them to be pretty stupid themselves.

And if there's a gay-right debate going on where you live, then you'd better take a respectable position in the debate, countering silly arguments with good ones, or just use silence when silly things are said.

Provoking the others, yelling at them, trying to silence them, is not going to help your case. Most important: be reasonable. Admit things that are true. Understand where the other comes from. That's how you change the hearts and the minds of people. Not how you guys treath Ben. (like Ben will never be able to change your hearts and minds b/c of the way he talks to you)

[Zanzozz]

2. Hate speech based on sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, age, disability will not be tolerated.

http://apolyton.net/forums/faq.php?faq=faqid_4#faq_faqid_4_43

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

to depreciate by indirect means (as invidious comparison) : speak slightingly about

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparage

There's a difference between judging actions (ie, homosexuality)

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=191845&page=22

Having sex with guys is also bad for you.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=191845&page=19

About homosexuality? What is extravagant about the claim that homosexuality is bad for your mental and physical health? Why does it matter if a claim is ludicrious if true?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=191845&page=20

Islam is wrong
Homosexuality is wrong
Killing people and harvesting their organs is wrong,

are all objectively true.

So, are all of the above simply not disparaging towards homosexuality because it is based on facts that Ben claims to be true?